Anda di halaman 1dari 2

#35

CORP
PETRON
vs
al.
et
ALILIN
S.
AVELINO
G.R.

2014-06-09
177592,
NO.

FACTS:
D.
Petron
ais
domestic
corporation
engaged
in
the
oil
business.
In
1968,
Romualdo
Gindang

for
laborers
recruiting
started
Gindang,
D.
Romualdo
by
operated
and
owned
Contractor,
fielding
through
to
Petrons
Mandaue
Bulk
Plant.
When
Romualdo
died
in
1989,
his
son
Romeo,
Romeo
to
D.
Gindang
Services
(RDG),
took
over
and
continued
provide
manpower
services
Petron.

Petron

provide
2002,
31,
May
to
2000
1,
June
from
Services
for
Contract
a
into
entered
RDG
and
Petron

was
This
services.
utility
other
and
packaging
receiving,
tanker
maintenance,
janitorial,
with
extended

dismissed.
were
workers
and
done
was
renewal
no
expiration,
Upon
2002.
30,
Sept
until
Petitioners

from
barred
were
they
that
alleging
Petron
against
complaint
dismissal
illegal
an
filed
continuing
hired
their
services
on
Oct
16,
2002.
Petitioners
claim
that
although
it
was
RDG
who
them

true
Petron,
of
agent
an
as
acting
contractor,
labor-only
a
is
RDG
salaries,
their
paid
and
employer.

in
allegedly
dismissal
their
that
asserted
petitioners
employees,
regular
be
to
Claiming
view

illegal.
is
RDG
and
Petron
between
contract
service
expiration
the
of

RDG
petitioners
denied
liability
over
claim
of
illegal
dismissal
while
also
corroborating
claim

RDG
maintained
hand,
other
the
on
Petron,
Petron.
of
employees
regular
are
they
that
isindependent
an
hired
which
RDG,
was
It
petitioners.
of
employer
real
the
and
contractor
selected

work.
supervised
directly
wages,
and
salaries
their
paid
petitioners,

Both

however
CA
employees.
regular
Petrons
are
petitioners
that
ruled
NLRC
and
Arbiter
Labor
ruled

an
fact
in
RDG
and
relationship,
employer-employee
no
is
there
that
stating
otherwise
independent
for
labor
contractor
with
sufficient
capitalization
and
investment.
The
Motion
Reconsideration

petition.
this
hence
dismissed,
was
Petitioners
by

ISSUE:

(1)

contractor
labor-only
a
is
RDG
Whether

(2)

dismissal
petitioners
for
liable
is
Petron
Whether

RULING:
such
YES.
The
contractor
is
always
presumed
to
abe
labor-only
contractor,
unless
(1)
contractor

one
is
principal
where
However,
otherwise.
proving
of
burden
the
overcomes
claiming
so.
proving
of
burden
has
(Petron)
principal
said
legitimate,
is
contractor
the
that
In
this
Petron
case,
presumption
that
RDG
ais
labor-only
contractor
stands,
due
to
the
failure
of
to performed
burden
of
proving
otherwise.
The
Court
also
found
that
the
works
discharge
were
is
directly
related
to
business
negating
further
Petrons
claim
that
RDG
independent.

(2)

there
declaring
to
equivalent
only
labor-
is
contractor
a
that
finding
[A]
YES.
is supposed
employer-employee
relationship
between
principal
and
employees
of
the
an
contractor.

due
apparent
more
all
becomes
relationship
employer-employee
the
case,
this
In
topresence

being
therefore,
RDG.
over
Petron
part
on
control
power
the
of
the
for
principal
employer
and
RDG,
being
the
labor-only
contractor,
are
solidarily
liable
petitioners

claims.
monetary
and
dismissal
illegal